Malcolm Rifkind: The position of women is of huge importance. I wanted to include such a provision, but the powers that be would not permit it, because it would have contradicted the long title of the Bill. The hon. and learned Lady is right that women's entitlement to pensions will be a crucial consideration when Adair Turner reports and the Government decide their policy, because that blot must be fully addressed.
	I was dealing with the principled objections to compulsion, and the fourth one is that it does not work. The one country that has tried it, Australia, introduced it about 10 years ago through a collective-bargaining deal between the Government and the trade unions, whereby in exchange for restraint on pay claims, employers were required to make further contributions to pension funds. Over the past 10 years, the single biggest consequence of the change in Australia has been the diversion of savings held in other products into the compulsory scheme. Overall, Australia has the same problems as other countries.

Malcolm Rifkind: First, that would depend on whether they had other sources of income. Most people—not all, by any means—have the state pension, and they might have an occupational pension, second state pension and so on. To meet the minimum retirement income, therefore, the retirement income fund will have to be maintained at the level needed to fill the gap between the income that they have from other confirmed sources of income and that which will avoid their falling into benefit. It will vary from individual to individual, but the ultimate parameters will be determined by the Treasury and the Government. For that reason, the Government's interest will be entirely secure.
	Clause 10 covers the previously mentioned principle of allowing a retirement income fund to be taken either before or at age 75, in addition or as an alternative to an annuity or alternatively secured pension.
	To promote fairness and a better deal for consumers, I have also addressed the need to make provision for people who purchase value-protected annuities, enabling them to have capital returned to their spouses or other beneficiaries when they die after age 75. At the moment, under the Government's rules, the return of capital, quite illogically and unfairly, is allowed if people die before age 75. If they die a day before they reach 75, their relatives get a proportion of the unused capital, whereas if they die a day after 75, they do not get a penny. That is a completely arbitrary rule, totally unfair and unjustified, and ought to be removed.
	Clause 12, in part 2, covers the removal of the age limit for annuity protection lump sum death benefit. When people buy an annuity, they are buying an insurance policy against living longer than their funds allow. Annuities are sold by insurers who cope with the risk of paying out for longer than is profitable by retaining any remaining capital after an annuitant's death. Therefore, if an annuitant dies soon after purchase, the annuity provider stands to keep a large amount of capital. Many consumers feel that that amount of risk represents a bad deal.
	From April 2006, as I have said, people can pay extra for value protection on their annuities, so if they die within a protected period, the remaining capital can be passed on in their wills, minus a tax charge. Under the Government's current proposals, that return is available only to those who die before the age of 75. I believe that the Government, like me, are committed to fairness regardless of age, and believe in helping consumers to get a better deal. This is the sharp end of equal opportunity and anti-age discrimination policies, and it is crucial if we are to persuade people to save more for retirement. When people know that the retirement income market is fair and that products represent good value, they will be more likely to save in the first place.
	Part 3 covers the promotion of personal pension schemes, and it will not take more than a moment to explain. There is broad concern about the problems that are caused when people collect a large number of small pension pots. That has already been mentioned today. It is often known as high proliferation. When people stop paying into their main pension arrangements after a short period, it is known as low persistency. The problems largely stem from people's moving between employers, or in and out of employment. As a result, large numbers of people retire with private pension savings that are over-complicated, numerous and inadequate at the same time.
	A recent survey by the Association of British Insurers found that more than 40 per cent. of people over the age of 30 have more than one personal pension, with some having more than five. ABI figures show that there were nearly 23 million personal pensions in existence in 2002, although Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs suggests that only about around 10 million were active and receiving tax relief.
	A key problem is the fact that past practices and current stakeholder pension designation requirements ask employers to deduct pension contributions at source, but to pay the contributions into a single designated scheme. According to recent research, only 15 per cent. of people in receipt of an employer's pension contribution are able to choose where it is paid. That encourages low persistency, as when people move jobs they are likely to have to end the contributions to their former employer's pension schemes and start paying into a new alternative scheme. Allowing people to go on paying into the same pension after moving employers, and allowing easy consolidation of different pension arrangements, would not only benefit people who move jobs, but help those who return to paid work after a break and who already have an individual pension arrangement.
	My Bill proposes reforms designed to make it easier for consumers to start paying and continue to pay into the same pension scheme, regardless of whether they move jobs. That will be achieved by allowing many more employees to have their employers' pension contributions paid directly into a pension scheme of the employees' choice. My reforms will increase radically the number of employers who offer the facility of paying pension contributions directly into a pension scheme of each employee's choice. The change would be implemented by asking those employers who have to designate a stakeholder pension to offer a payroll deduction for contributions to any stakeholder or other personal pension scheme, including SaRAs.
	The Bill would also reduce the cost of running pension schemes, because providers would have fewer small funds to administer. For example, if people tended to take their pensions with them from job to job, there would be less need to pay initial commission to cover the sale of a new product, with a resulting impact on charges for consumers. The end result will be fewer, bigger pension funds which are easier for consumers to understand, which cost less to administer, and which provide higher incomes in retirement.
	I apologise for detaining the House for so long, but I was of course pleased to respond to so many interventions. Let me finally say this. The Government have said on numerous occasions over the past few months that they hope it will be possible to achieve a degree of national consensus on savings and pensions so that future generations of savers and pensioners can be given certainty and security. We have told the Government that we understand that aspiration, but consensus requires the Government not only to speak but occasionally to listen, and to be prepared to accept sensible, constructive proposals that may come from other sources. It would not be acceptable for the Government, either explicitly or implicitly, to reject proposals simply because they were not invented here.
	I hope that the Government will consider my proposals on their merits. I have no doubt that some changes will be needed in Committee to much of the detail. That is true of even the Govt's legislation from time to time, so that in itself could not be an objection. I do not think that anything in the Bill conflicts with any of the objectives of Government policy. We all recognise that a savings crisis exists. The schemes in the Bill are not theoretical: they are not "unthought" ideas. They have worked in practice, particularly in Canada, for the last 20 years.
	The Bill has bipartisan support. I have already mentioned the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who carries a good deal of weight in the House when it comes to these matters. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, and that the House as a whole will consider the Bill worthy of its support.

Lyn Brown: It is incumbent on us all to ensure that the people who need the money most get that money. That means that everyone on pension credit is entitled to the money that is owed them. I do not see anyone on either side of the Chamber stating that that is not the case.
	Measures such as pension credit have done so much to change the legacy that we inherited, when the greatest predictor of poverty was old age. In contrast, we have lifted almost 2 million pensioners out of poverty, and 3.3 million are receiving pension credit. That is why, on average, pensioner households are £1,500 better a year better off than they were in 1997. The poorest pensioners are £2,000 a year better off.
	It is a source of pride to me that in West Ham nearly 5,000 pensioners received the additional funding of pension credit, with an average award of £65.41 per week. That is a sign of the difference that the credit is making to the people of West Ham. That sum is nearly the total amount that the previous Administration were prepared to offer.
	I am giving way.

John Penrose: I draw the hon. Lady's attention to two points. First, the analogy with the USA is perhaps not an apposite one. The scheme that we are discussing is based on the Canadian model, which does not have the same parameters within which the USA currently exists.
	Secondly—this point relates particularly to adult further education—last night I attended a governors' meeting of my local FE college. There is great concern in the FE sector about the proposals that are being put about by the Learning and Skills Council and the effect that they will have on people who want to take up adult FE courses, particularly at level 3 and above, and the effective cuts in the funding of those courses. If those cuts are to take effect, it is vital that we find other ways of assisting people who are out of work for one reason or another. They may have been made redundant and need to change careers. They may have been forced into leaving their job through sickness and be on incapacity benefit. There are young mothers who are seeking to return to the work force after a period away. All these three groups need some help in returning to the work force. They also need some help in reskilling. Given the Government's current plans, with the Learning and Skills Council, they will not be helped. They need some additional provision. The Bill will help to provide it.
	The third group, which is crucial, is that of pensioners. As an MP who represents a constituency with one of the highest proportions of pensioners, I have lost count of the number of pensioners who have complained about the requirement to buy an annuity at 75. In some cases that is the right thing to do, but they think that the lack of choice at that age takes away their dignity and the flexibility to make decisions for themselves. They accept the need for financial stability and, wherever possible, they wish to avoid becoming a burden on the state by drawing down state benefits. However, they want the respect to which their years entitle them, and wish to be allowed to make their own decisions rather than being told what they have to do. The Bill is a valuable and flexible measure that will restore a great deal of that dignity.
	Finally, while those important groups in society need help, the Bill will have an economic benefit, as it should help to improve the savings ratio by reducing the number of pension schemes. Last night, I added up my pension schemes—perhaps this is a declaration of interest—and found that I have eight. I would be willing and able to save much more, and I suspect that many other people would too, if our pension schemes could be rolled into one. I therefore support the Bill.

Dari Taylor: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) on securing a high place in ballot. It is important that we discuss new proposals on retirement pensions, which are a serious problem, so he has my warm support thus far.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal falls into four distinct parts. First, it suggests that we should increase the opportunities for long-term savings with tax incentives. I have no objections to that proposal save for the reservations that have already been outlined by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) dealt with the issue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) who spoke eloquently about the problems of poverty that many of us confront day after day. It is the Government's role to prioritise need, but to support a scheme that excludes a large percentage of our constituents would put that role in jeopardy.

Barbara Keeley: Like many of us here this morning, I do not claim to be any sort of expert on pensions but, as a fairly new MP, I understand the need to get the future of pensions right. There are factors that we have to balance. The first, which has been referred to, is increased life expectancy. The second is an ageing population. The burden of paying for services for that ageing population will be borne by a smaller group of those of working age. For me, the politics of pension reform is just as important as the policy itself.
	As we can see from the attendance this morning, there is an increasing interest in the national pensions debate, especially the issues involving women and carers. Developments in pensions must address those groups in particular. My party's manifesto for the May 2005 election stated:
	"We need to forge a national consensus about how we move"
	to a pensions system that is right for tomorrow's pension problems.
	What is the pensions situation now? I contend that it is not one of crisis, as some Conservative Members have said this morning, but it is recognised that there are problems. There are concerns about overall pension provision and future pensioner incomes. Our concern is to lift more pensioners out of poverty. A great deal has been done to achieve that, but more needs to be done.
	Our pensions environment is complex, as many Members have said—particularly for those who have four, or even eight, pensions to juggle. Over the coming decades, it is clear that there will be a sustained increase in the proportion of older people in the population. If we seek to maintain or increase pensioners' income, the share of national income going to them will rise. That rise will clearly have to be paid for by the shrinking population who are of working age. Such a settlement between the generations means that there must be a consensus on how to go forward on pensions reform.
	The Finance Act 2004 made changes to the resulting system for pensions, which is due to come into force in April next year. It relaxed the rule concerning taking an annuity at 75. The Act allows people to take an alternatively secured pension. At the heart of the debate on compulsory annuities or whether to allow income draw-down after the age of 75 seems to be the issue of whether a pension scheme provides an income stream for a pensioner or whether it is designed to allow build-up of capital, which can be passed on to heirs.
	When that matter was debated in 2004, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said on behalf of the Government that offering
	"additional incentive for higher rate taxpayers to pass their pension funds down through the generations could have significant behavioural effects".
	With more being saved in pensions than is currently the case, she said:
	"Inland Revenue estimates suggest that that could cost hundreds of millions of pounds."
	She concluded that removing the requirement to take an annuity at 75 and allowing pension funds to pass on through the generations
	"would . . . be to the detriment of . . . ordinary pensioners"
	and would
	"cost the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 June 2004; c. 489–90.]
	I do not think that that is the right to choice to make on pensions reform, and nor do I think that it would command a consensus nationally. Clearly, this Bill would help the top 5 per cent. or so of the population.

Nigel Waterson: I hope that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) feels better after that. It is interesting that she, like almost all Labour Members today, effectively attacked the Bill from the left. She described the Bill as an interesting sideshow when potentially it will benefit tens of millions of people. Her description of it was extraordinary. I do not think that it bodes well for the Government's likely response to Lord Turner's final report.
	I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) on his good fortune in securing the Bill high up the pecking order of private Members' Bills, and on his elegant manner in describing it from what one of our former colleagues described as the icy wastes of the Back Benches. It was a bravura performance.
	I declare an interest as having my own private pension provision. I am sure that that will produce moans from Labour Members.
	For eight years, the Government have presided over a pensions crisis of unprecedented proportions and a collapse in savings. At times they have appeared to be entirely paralysed by indecision. Meanwhile millions of our fellow citizens are in real danger of being condemned to relative poverty in their old age. It is to the Conservative Opposition that people have to come and to whom the British people must come to look for fresh thinking, radical ideas and bold proposals.
	Only this morning, we have seen the press reports of the Office for National Statistics. The figures that they contain are chilling. They show that only about half our fellow citizens are making pension provision, that the number of generous final salary schemes has halved in the past four years and, echoing what the Pensions Commission has said, that some 12 million workers are not saving enough, or even at all, for their retirement. I echo the words of Patience Wheatcroft in The Times today. She said of my right hon. and learned Friend:
	"His sensible proposals deserve all-party backing. The Government has said that it is seeking consensus on pensions: now is the chance to provide it."
	There have been interesting contributions from a number of Members. I cannot do them all justice. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, raised some issues and concerns of his on tax relief. That is not an issue that can be dealt with centrally while discussing the Bill. He spoke also about incentives and draw-down.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) is already building a reputation in work and pensions matters. He spoke with particular authority, especially on the funding of further education for older students. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made a thoughtful speech, by contrast, if I may say so, with blundering through the handouts from the Government Whips, which has happened during much of the debate. I have already said that much of the attack on the Bill has come from the left rather than from the middle ground.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) made the point that the Bill goes with the grain of human nature, something that has always been the fundamental backing of Conservatism. My hon. Friend reminded us of the 12 million people without provision for their retirement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) made excellent points on the tax incentive system and stressed the real importance of encouraging saving. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) brought together the issues of young people and attempts to get on the housing ladder, both of which are dealt with cleverly by the flexibility contained in the Bill. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) eloquently described the way in which the Government's policies have damaged pensions over the past eight years.
	I do not think that it is my task to go over all the ground that my right hon. and learned Friend covered in his excellent opening speech. However, it is worth touching on some of the central advantages of the proposed legislation. First, there is the savings and retirement account, which combines simplicity, flexibility and accessibility. Crucially, consumers would have genuine choice about provision for their retirement. The requirement on employers to provide access to the SaRA scheme is extremely important. The fact that payments can be transferred from previous pension schemes to a SaRA has many advantages for individual savers. My right hon. and learned Friend avowedly based his proposals on the Canadian system, but Conservative Members have learned many lessons from the 401(k) pensions system in the USA. It, too, is based on simplicity and flexibility, and allows a drawdown of pension funds for major life events such as house purchase and educational costs. It works extremely well, and has achieved a high penetration among the work force, largely because of its simplicity.
	My right hon. and learned Friend has struck a commendable balance between the need to encourage genuine long-term pension saving and the provision of flexibility so that people can withdraw substantial amounts of money for major life events. Clause 5 allows money to be withdrawn to purchase a property, but only if it is someone's principal residence. That contrasts with the Chancellor's generous provision for second homes, perhaps in Spain, under self-invested personal pensions. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals allow for the purchase of property for a child and for the funding of education, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, speaking from his experience as governor of a further education college.
	Retirement income funds—RIFs—are based on the Canadian experience. On retirement, individuals, regardless of their age, can choose whether or not to convert their pension savings into an annuity or a retirement income fund. By contrast with annuity arrangements, capital as well as income can be withdrawn from the account, with the proviso that people cannot blow the cash in their retirement pot and become an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and the benefit system. That thread runs through all private Members' Bills on annuities introduced by Conservative Members, and it demonstrates the importance of the minimum retirement income.
	At least one Government Member was outraged by the fact that someone could name a spouse, a common-law partner or one of their children to receive their RIF assets on death, with those assets being transferred on a tax-deferred basis. We believe in passing on hard-earned wealth to the next generation, and I am surprised that some Government Members still take offence at that. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the question of annuities is an anomaly only in the United Kingdom. No other country, as far as we know, has a system of compulsory annuitisation. The USA and Canada do not, and neither do comparable economies across the world. Why should we retain the absurd notion that at the age of 75, if not before, people are obliged to act under the requirement, unless they belong to the Plymouth Brethren, whose members can avoid it and whose numbers, I suspect, are rising dramatically as we speak? Why should people be put in that position when it is their money, saved from hard work over many decades?
	My right hon. and learned Friend has introduced practical proposals on pension proliferation. Ministers should not find it difficult to accept those provisions, which are a sensible step to meet the needs of the modern era, in which people move from job to job. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an eloquent argument for such arrangements, but he is not untypical, as many people change jobs several times and acquire a number of small pension pots.
	As I said, we must look at the Bill against the background of a collapse in savings, the fact that many millions of people are not saving anything like enough for their retirement, and consumers' need for greater choice and greater control over how they structure their retirement.
	In conclusion, my right hon. and learned Friend's Bill is especially attractive because it benefits a series of different groups in our society. Previous attempts have concentrated on the annuities issue, important though that is. The Bill will benefit older people—those nearing the age of 75—plus those still in work who have a variety of separate pension pots. It will also benefit young people, who are strongly turned off the concept of pensions. For young people in work or perhaps just starting work, who are looking for simple, flexible and easy to understand savings vehicles, the SaRA will be an excellent scheme. I am delighted to be a sponsor of the Bill and, on behalf of my party, I wish it a fair wind.

Annette Brooke: I wish to be quick so as to allow others to speak.
	I welcome the announcements that have already been made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on provisions in the Bill. It makes a great deal of sense to take the junk food out of school vending machines and to ensure that we give clear and consistent messages about what is actually happening and what is said in the classroom. We have to take responsibility for the mental and physical development of our children. Let us ponder on "You are what you eat". If we keep that at the back of our minds, we will be able to get totally on message. Supermarket chains could do more to promote healthy food. I would like the traffic lights system to be used to help identify nutritious food and to educate us about healthy choices.
	To concentrate briefly on specific proposals in the Bill, I support the proposed new duty on the Department of Health to promote healthy eating for children. I would like to see the Government extending the school fruit and vegetable scheme to older children. That would go well along with other parts of the package.
	The moves to tackle school meals and ensure that there are minimum nutritional standards are long overdue. Many schools operate good schemes, but I wonder why we had to wait for Jamie to show us the way. In Dorset, not a single primary school has an on-site kitchen, so I am worried that there will not be enough money to meet the Government's aspirations on school meals. However, the principles of the measure are right, and I am happy to support them.
	We certainly need to do something about advertising. For every £1 spent promoting healthy eating £500 is spent marketing unhealthy food, so the market has clearly failed. Advertising promotions determine our children's food choices and propel them down a single route. The producer is king. I agree that if we limit the advertising of unhealthy food for children, many parents will be under less pressure to give in to their requests for fast food. The Government have obviously accepted the principle that advertising should be limited, as they are talking to respected members of the industry, but they must be prepared to act if change has not taken place by early 2007. However, we cannot afford to wait that long, and we should take action today by supporting the Bill.
	We should put the clock back and offer practical cookery lessons in schools. It is also desirable that food should be grown on school grounds. Finally, I agree with the Food Standards Agency that we need to assess the impact of food on children's health and well-being.
	In conclusion, the Bill's provisions are all necessary. Other measures are required too, but I urge hon. Members to support it.

Justine Greening: I am not a parent, but I am not sure that three and four-year-olds clamour for unhealthy food. We must be careful not to adopt sticking-plaster solutions, as the root cause of the problem is a lack of understanding among parents about a healthy diet. Surely, a junk food advertising ban is only a temporary solution, not a permanent one?

Keith Vaz: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I understand that he does not have all the facts today and that he will contact me, but may I have some timetable for that? I wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in August and it is now nearly November. My hon. Friend will need to investigate before he can write to me with the information, but we need a timetable so that we can achieve closure on this matter. Otherwise it could just go on for ever.

Andy Burnham: The case has only recently come to my attention as a result of this debate. I give my hon. Friend my personal guarantee that I will get back to him at the earliest opportunity to place the full facts before him. Once we have those full facts and we know the full circumstances of this sad and tragic case, and if lessons need to be learned and action taken to prevent it happening again, I categorically guarantee that that will happen.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.